The Canon EOS R5 Mark II – We have now seen it

[cayenne]

Why? Does it seem likely that many users will switch systems? Forum participants don't represent the real world...people here seem to believe that Canon must entice Sony users to buy Canon cameras or Canon users to not buy Sony cameras. The reality is more likely that Canon needs to entice Canon users to buy new Canon cameras instead of just hanging on to the Canon cameras they have.

The strategy of a market leader is typically not the same as a market follower trying to make gains.

Yep and I"m one of them.

I'll be replacing my 5D3 for the R52 soon I imagine....

I rarely buy a 1.0 version of anything hardware or software....


cayenne

 

[cayenne]

This is very exciting. Especially the cooling solutions!!!

There are a some video centric things from R5C I would love to see in the R5

1. Shutter Angle options
2. Tooling. False Colors. Advanced Wave Forms, HDMI options for these
3. The R5c has a bit better dynamic range and better noise patterns in the shadows than the R5 so hopefully this is better the R5II as well. Some of this I think was due to the Cinema line's OS/Code.
4. Cinema Raw Codecs. I like these a lot better than I did the Canon Raw and Raw LT in the R5
5. I think the R5C had better highlight rolloff than the the R5 again probably due to algorithms in the cinema os. So I hope this comes over in some way to the R5II.
6. Obviously IBIS will be in the R5II so my question is will you be able to lock off IBIS in some way to make rougher filming scenarios more viable than the R5. R5C of course did not have IBIS.
7. Anamorphic Desqueeze Options in Camera.

Also, 12BIT Raw Output would be nice.

Hopefully some this info will come.

I'd like #7 to be active in STILLS shooting too!!

I love shooting my adapted anamorphic on my other mirrorless cameras, but it is a PITA to not be able to either desqueeze in camera coming out RAW or desqueeze in an external RAW editor....I can't find a way to do that in C! or On1 or any others I've played with.

IT would be awesome to have this on the STiLLS side of the camera in addition to the video side.

I've been reading, and apparently I'm not the only person enjoying shooting anamorphic wide screen for still images.

cayenne

 

[Tony5787]

I think that you mis-remember that then R5 was revolutionary when released! Nothing else could do what it does - and indeed the A1 still cannot record 8K30 raw even at 1.5x the R5's price before all the discounting and currently 2.2x the price!
The main difference is the battery life which is not due to the battery capacity but the internal power usage of the chipsets etc so hopefully the R5ii will be more power efficient.

Indeed, who knows what Sony will release and when but making an assumption based on distant rumours is foolish. The R5ii spec sheet hasn't appeared yet let alone anything for the A1ii

The R5ii will be different to the A1 (and A1ii) - not least of which is the size/ memory cards. The biggest difference is the price so to say that they are playing in the same market segmentation is a reach. Can you honestly say that USD3900 is equivalent to USD6500 release price?

1. It is extremely rare for a new user to decide between (almost) flag ship systems.
2. It is rare for users to have multiple systems but it happens for some use cases.
3. It is expensive to switch between systems. Users love to tell everyone when they switch to justify their choice of system but they don't disclose how much it cost them.

What your subsequent posts have shown is that you (and a small number of others including some in this forum) are in the 2nd category and have sufficient disposal income to support those choices. That would be a small % vs most R5 owners (including myself).
My point is that Canon would not be trying to convince your segment that the R5ii has to beat the A1 feature set at 60% of the cost.
Your opinions would not be relevant for Canon in this case.

I think you hit the nail on the head, what that means though is that Canon doesn’t see bird/wildlife photography as a serious enough segment to offer a true flagship for. It’s just a confusing choice from them to have the R5 as the high-resolution body in their lineup and then two lower resolution bodies aimed at action. If the R3 didn’t exist it would make way more sense but as it stands it’s like if Sony had named the a9 III the a1s and kept the a9 II as a separate model in their lineup.

 

[cayenne]

meanwhile I'm still waiting for a replacement of my 5Ds. 60-70mpx would do the trick perfectly and my TS-E collection pushes me back from switching to GFX.

From what I can remember looking t the TS-E lenses to use on my GFX100...I seem to recall that the image circle on those things is SO large that they will pretty much work with the GFX larger sensor...you might have slight vignetting at the extremes, but that's easily fixed in post.

Maybe rent one and see how it does for you?

Just my $0.02,

cayenne

 

[cayenne]

Not as appreciative as one might think. The technology has removed a lot of the skill requirement, which means almost anyone willing to learn a little can get a lot of the shots only a rare few could get before. That's why images that once paid $500 per use are now paying less than $5 per use. Those few who could get the shots when they paid $500 are not happy that the market is now flooded with enough such shots that the market value has dropped by 99%.

Wait and see how they feel when the ability to completely generate images from scratch with AI is perfected AND simplified for the average user.

No money at all paid for photography for the most part I'm guessing.



You'll be shooting just for the fun of it for the most part, except for hard news...and even then, soon it'll be impossible to judge if it was real on site or generated.

C

 

[neuroanatomist]

If the R3 didn’t exist it would make way more sense

That could easily happen if Canon discontinues the R3 once the R1 is readily available. That seems likely, especially with the deep discounts on the R3 over the past few months.

 

[Ozarker]

No, a wide angle lens for astro is specifically just for wide shots. You can get some very cool compositions of earth and sky when you go 24mm or wider. If you want to go deeper, you put a T-adapter on your camera to insert or thread it directly to a telescope focuser which makes the telescope the primary optic, but then you certainly need a tracking mount which changes the experience entirely. Astrophotography is a wide field (ha ha) and there are many different types of shots worth taking. However, ultrawide lenses at relatively short exposures (under 30s) mean you don't need a tracking mount, so they make it possible to take stunning astro photos while traveling, hiking, etc. As someone who goes on multiple trips a year to dark backcountry skies, I'd love something like a 14/1.4, or the rumored 14-20/2. The latter would be a pretty crazy lens if Canon actually managed to control coma, vignetting, and CA.

Thanks!

 

[amorse]

I think you hit the nail on the head, what that means though is that Canon doesn’t see bird/wildlife photography as a serious enough segment to offer a true flagship for. It’s just a confusing choice from them to have the R5 as the high-resolution body in their lineup and then two lower resolution bodies aimed at action. If the R3 didn’t exist it would make way more sense but as it stands it’s like if Sony had named the a9 III the a1s and kept the a9 II as a separate model in their lineup.

Again, it'll be interesting to see where the R5ii eventually lands in capability for comparison to some of those bodies. I think Canon may just feel that the R5 was pretty well suited to the needs of those shooters and maybe only a small number would be willing to cough up the additional money to get the additional features of something like the a1 inclusive of high-resolution. Canon obviously has a different opinion than its competitors at the moment (right or wrong).

With that said, (and I've said this before) I do really believe that Canon just segments their bodies differently than others. At the top end of the line, there isn't a perfect 1-1 comparison for a lot of Canon bodies. For instance, if we reverse the conversation to say which Sony bodies compete with the R5, there's a real argument out there for the a1, a7RV, and a7SIII - that's a lot of different models where Canon only has 1. I don't have the answer, but it seems clear that Canon sees the market differently than others.

 

[Ozarker]

Tell me, what's the secret to having so many lifetimes?

He are a witch.

 

[Ian K]

Do we have any word on if the R5 Mark II has a CFExpress 4 memory slot, preferably 2?

 

[Tony5787]

That could easily happen if Canon discontinues the R3 once the R1 is readily available. That seems likely, especially with the deep discounts on the R3 over the past few months.

Yeah I can’t see both lines existing side-by-side. I know a lot of people have speculated that the R3 was just the R1 but rebadged but I think what’s more likely is that it was a litmus test for the R1 before adding all of the extra features that working pros rely on.

 

[Ozarker]

I think that you mis-remember that then R5 was revolutionary when released! Nothing else could do what it does - and indeed the A1 still cannot record 8K30 raw even at 1.5x the R5's price before all the discounting and currently 2.2x the price!
The main difference is the battery life which is not due to the battery capacity but the internal power usage of the chipsets etc so hopefully the R5ii will be more power efficient.

Indeed, who knows what Sony will release and when but making an assumption based on distant rumours is foolish. The R5ii spec sheet hasn't appeared yet let alone anything for the A1ii

The R5ii will be different to the A1 (and A1ii) - not least of which is the size/ memory cards. The biggest difference is the price so to say that they are playing in the same market segmentation is a reach. Can you honestly say that USD3900 is equivalent to USD6500 release price?

1. It is extremely rare for a new user to decide between (almost) flag ship systems.
2. It is rare for users to have multiple systems but it happens for some use cases.
3. It is expensive to switch between systems. Users love to tell everyone when they switch to justify their choice of system but they don't disclose how much it cost them.

What your subsequent posts have shown is that you (and a small number of others including some in this forum) are in the 2nd category and have sufficient disposal income to support those choices. That would be a small % vs most R5 owners (including myself).
My point is that Canon would not be trying to convince your segment that the R5ii has to beat the A1 feature set at 60% of the cost.
Your opinions would not be relevant for Canon in this case.

Most alleged ship jumper threats aren't real. People who have that kind of money tend to be frugal minded (credit card holders with no money are the opposite). I often wonder if people think those threats send some guy running down the halls into the corporate boardroom screaming, "OMG! Velociraptor007 is gonna switch! Stop production! Call in the engineers!"

 

[roby17269]

The R5 did have lock-up issues at the start, but Canon fixed them within about a year in firmware updates.

Not for everyone - I have still experieced lock ups till the latest firmware, which came quite recently.
The latest firmware seems to have done the trick for me. But I had to wait till march 2024 for it.

 

[JohnC]

From what I can remember looking t the TS-E lenses to use on my GFX100...I seem to recall that the image circle on those things is SO large that they will pretty much work with the GFX larger sensor...you might have slight vignetting at the extremes, but that's easily fixed in post.

Maybe rent one and see how it does for you?

Just my $0.02,

cayenne

Ive read that somewhere as well.

 

[roby17269]

From what I can remember looking t the TS-E lenses to use on my GFX100...I seem to recall that the image circle on those things is SO large that they will pretty much work with the GFX larger sensor...you might have slight vignetting at the extremes, but that's easily fixed in post.

Maybe rent one and see how it does for you?

Just my $0.02,

cayenne

You can use the EF TS lenses on small MF Fuji cameras indeed, but in neutral position, meaning without tilting or shifting. If you do tilt and / or shift you will start seeing the limits of the image circle (i.e. total black vignetting). You cannot use them on Hasselblad's small MF cameras since they do not have a leaf shutter

 

[David - Sydney]

Welcome to CR forums. It's evident from your "Flagshit camera" statement that you're really adding value here already. Feel free to leave, and don't let the virtual door hit you on your head on the way out, troll. And yes, I swapped head for ass in that phrase because I suspect yours are interchangeable as far as intellect goes.

Not having a good day?

 

[David - Sydney]

Do we have any word on if the R5 Mark II has a CFExpress 4 memory slot, preferably 2?

Canon will use whatever standard allows them to clear the buffer reasonably, minimise costs to meet the engineering spec and manage heat.
The 5 series (to my knowledge) have never had dual slots of the same type and have rarely used recent standards.
I prefer CFe v3 simply because they will be cheaper than v4 cards. That said, it is unlikely that I will upgrade due to different layout that won't fit my housing. :-(

 

[Aussie shooter]

users aren't happy with the "made using AI" designation when they have just used PS genIA object removal vs clone or content aware fill. Same issue with Topaz AI denoise.
The line will be hotly debated for post processing but machine learning for AI subject acquisition/tracking has been great and widely understood.

It is unclear how genAI would be used in-body ie without cloud access or even if it wanted. Choosing to transfer the image to a phone and then remove objects is one thing but doing it in-body seems a feature that few would use.

An option for something like Topaz for noise reduction in-body jpg files could be an application
Baked-in noise reduction in raw files has been somewhat controversial in tech forums but not elsewhere.

My concern isn't that AI can be done to an image in post production. As competitions etc can request RAW files to prove integrity. But if it is done in camera and somehow still recorded as a RAW file, how would integrity be assured? Like I said, I doubt this will be the case but it is just a nagging thought in my mind

 

[neuroanatomist]

With that said, (and I've said this before) I do really believe that Canon just segments their bodies differently than others. At the top end of the line, there isn't a perfect 1-1 comparison for a lot of Canon bodies.

That makes perfect sense. As I’ve stated previously, it doesn’t make sense for companies with a much smaller market share than the leader to simply copy the leader’s strategy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah I can’t see both lines existing side-by-side. I know a lot of people have speculated that the R3 was just the R1 but rebadged but I think what’s more likely is that it was a litmus test for the R1 before adding all of the extra features that working pros rely on.

Wait, you mean when Canon said the technology wasn’t ready to be called 1-series and gave us the R3, they weren’t panicking and forced to lie? Shocking.

If the R1 actually has QPAF, that’s a pretty simple rationale. Even bottom-of-the-barrel DSLRs could focus on a horizontal line, at least with the center point. My R3 can’t, and to me that means it’s not ready to be called a 1-series.